Jump to content
bamboozleTHEmonarch

oceans T

Recommended Posts

dictionary.com gives the following definitions of oceans

 

1.
the vast body of salt water that covers almost three fourths ofthe earth's surface.
2.
any of the geographical divisions of this body, commonly givenas the Atlantic, Pacific, Indian, Arctic, and Antarctic oceans.
3.
a vast expanse or quantity: an ocean of grass.

 

 

 

does the resolution require the aff to increase USFG exploration/development operations in at least 2 of the 5 above listed oceans (as seemingly indicated by the second definition) or is it sufficient to simply increase in 1 as part of the "earth's oceans" (via the first definition)? 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The most common T argument is that oceans is plural thus meaning that the aff needs to develop in two oceans.

Edited by Solax10

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

3.

a vast expanse or quantity: an ocean of grass.

 

Trolololol

Edited by banjodude

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Quality

 

 

A. Interpretation - the earth is a 4-sided time cube - the plan text has to specify which side the plan passes on

Ray, No Date [Dr. Gene, Cubic and Wisest Human. “Time Cube.†www.timecube.com
you realize that a 4 corner
square rotating 1/4 turn creates a full
circle? A full rotated square will create
16 corners, 96 hours and 4 simultaneous
24 hour Day circles within only a single
imaginary cubed Earth roation. This
amounts to a spiraling quad helix of
Earth as it revolves around the Sun -
rotating as it revolves around the Sun,
to induce the value of the Sun revolving
about the Earth.


B. Violation - they fail to specify what side the plan passes on

C. Standards


1. Education - 

I can call singularity educators the most 
putrid name on Earth and claim they eat 
cow-dung ambrosia, but the lying ass 
bastards will not even object - for they 
know I am right and that any debate will 
indict them for the evil they perpetuate 
against the students and future humanity.

2. Ground - I lose links to side-specific DAs and counterplans

D. Voting issue

1. Jurisdiction - you lose automatically because
You do not have the freedom
to discuss/debate Time Cube.

2. Death - 
EVERY HUMAN DESERVES DEATH FOR IGNORING SUCH A SUPERNATURAL TRANSCENDENTAL PRINCIPLE.

Ashtar is the spiritual figure for the alien races waging an interstellar war that includes the Sol system [that's ours]. The negative consults Ashtar as a counterplan to solve war and violence and oppression, especially within these races. You can think of Ashtar like an alien Jesus Christ [in fact, some authors directly state that]. Here's a potential 1nc shell, but I'm sure the WGLF has a much better one:

Text: The USFG should engage in binding consultation with Lord Ashtar over <the plan>.


accepting Lord Ashtar as the ultimate authority is the only way to save our freedom and avoid nuclear war
Metatron on March 18
 (2011, “Metatron on Supermoon Cosmic Wave Energies Pouring into Equatorâ€, Human microphone: Madelaine, Galactic Free Press, http://soundofheart....pouring-equator)
Saturn lends its light magnifying the effects greatly. What role does Saturn play? At Saturn we have the Intergalactic Confederation of Worlds Court in this Solar System. This is called the Solar Tribunal. Lord Ashtar has stated many times there is a sequential flow of events that must take place before change over to Zero Point. The first is the arrests of the Intergalactic War Criminals. As the Citizens of Earth risk their lives to demand FREEDOM, it indicts the actions of the disreputable Monarchs and Puppet Governments of Earth. These relationships have been nurtured by the controlling families who have tried to control and reduce the population of Earth. These same Intergalactic War Criminals are now being stopped. It had to be a consensus among the Women, Children and Men of Each Country, the honorable White Knights moving into position to lead new government and the rest of the worldwide Community. It was only through more attacks and the bravery of the Ones in the Streets could we have a worldwide consensus. This is due to the Ones still hoping to stay in power working against the White Knights and the Greatest Good of All. The veil has thinned and their feeble grabs at power are becoming obvious even to the most sleepy. Lord Ashtar has also said, No Dates, No Nukes, No Flukes. What does it mean? The date at which the Galactic Federation decloaks all its Ships at once around the world is determined by the Citizens of Earth, not by the Galactics. The Citizens of Earth have been told many times, as have their Government Leaders that an end of the potential of Nuclear Destruction on Earth was a requirement. The Government Leaders who want to control Earth, not all of them, the dark Ones, kept their power by not following this requirement. For them, complying means they are arrested and possibly face second death. They would do anything to avoid getting rid of Nukes. 

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 31

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Non-military:

 

Does exploration/development modify non-military to mean that the actor cannot be military, or does non-military means that the actual development/exploration done is intended (full, or in part) for military needs?

 

Exploration:

 

Is this purely manifest destiny, deep sea, atlantis, etc... exploration or can exploration include scientific examination of previously explored locations?  Further, can it include metaphysical exploration of how we relate to the oceans?

 

Development:

 

Most open to interpretation, development is obviously some kind of growth, but definitely going to be heavily contested.

 

Earth's Oceans:

 

Firstly, oceans is plural, no counter-interp, that means 2 or more. More importantly, what constitutes the ocean? Does the ocean floor count, how about beaches, coral reefs... I can see lots of "oceans are only the water itself, nothing else" bull. There will inevitably be horrible debates about what counts as ocean.

Edited by KTricksfordays

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I will only point out on the "oceans" being two or more, is that oceanography divides oceans more finely than common everyday speech.

 

For example: the North Atlantic and the South Atlantic are separate oceans.

 

Oceanography definitions are obviously superior, since they're based on water-dynamics, locations of gyres, and represent the only thing close to an objective division of the earth's major water bodies.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Resolved: The United States federal government should substantially increase its non-military exploration and/or development of the Earth’s oceans.

Words to define (new ones, not USFG or substantially:

 

1) non-military

 

Generic definition from oxford:

 

 

not belonging to, characteristic of, or involving the armed forces; civilian:

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/nonmilitary

 

Something else to keep in mind is the agency of which would carry out your plan. For instance, if it was the Coast Guard, it wouldn't work because the CG is considered part of the military. (From 1967 to 2002 it was part of the Treasury IIRC). So if the agent is NASA (like launch pads on the oceans or some similar plan) there's a pretty good argument to be made about how it's non-military even if they try to argue that said launch pads could be used for military purposes.

 

Another possible option is looking at what categories of things are considered as non-military. The Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe discusses non-military confidence building measures, and lays out what categories of things they consider non-military:

http://www.osce.org/cpc/91082

TL; DR it's

Political, Economic, Environmental, Societal, and Cultural

 

There's also some evidence that says that what is considered military and non-military changes depending on if you're at war or not. This could be used to say that since we're not at war with the ocean people (yet) the definition used is doesn't apply.

http://www.icrc.org/customary-ihl/eng/docs/v2_cou_il_rule8

 

 

 

2) exploration

 

 

Now exploration has two interesting definitions in the generic sense. The first is exactly what you'd expect (Oxford):

the action of exploring an unfamiliar area

The second is more interesting:

the action of searching an area for natural resources:

 
This means that most energy affs, as long as they can be linked to the oceans, can be run. So Oil (even Cuban if you're boring and uncreative), Natural Gas, Geothermal, or something that requires searching (in this case probably drilling) would be topical. Before you say "HYRDOELECTRIC?!?!?!?!" that would be covered under development.
 
NOAA has an article on Ocean Exploration that also links to examples of what counts:
 
It looks like stuff with coral might be topical-http://oceanexplorer.noaa.gov/explorations/13pulleyridge/welcome.html
which would access advantages like ocean ecosystem and biodiversity.
 
Here's another definition:
P4PzlOC.jpg

 

3) development

 

Oxford defines development [http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/development]

*a specified state of growth or advancement:

*a new and refined product or idea:
*an event constituting a new stage in a changing situation:
*the process of converting land to a new purpose by constructing buildings or making use of its resources:
*an area of land with new buildings on it
*Chess the process of bringing one’s pieces into play in the opening phase of a game.
 
Here's where the rest of the energy affs come into play:
So wind power, hydroelectric, etc. can all be done. ADDITIONALLY if you can find a solvency advocate, you could do nuclear reactors and solar power stuff on the ocean.

 
 

 

4) oceans

 

Oxford defines Ocean as a big sea:

a very large expanse of sea, in particular each of the main areas into which the sea is divided geographically:

 
NOAA defines the difference between an OCEAN and a SEA
 
And then we have Merriam Webster's definition:
a :  the whole body of salt water that covers nearly three fourths of the surface of the earth
 

b :  any of the large bodies of water (as the Atlantic Ocean) into which the great ocean is divided

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/ocean

 

The 1A definition should be able to interact with the "oceans" must be plural neg argument because the world technically only has one ocean [insert K here about how splitting up the oceans is Eurocentric or whatever].

Edited by SnarkosaurusRex
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What will be the QPQ violation of this year?  I think Solax is right that Oceans, as in 2 will be popular, is there any other silly, nit-picky violations I can run?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What will be the QPQ violation of this year?  I think Solax is right that Oceans, as in 2 will be popular, is there any other silly, nit-picky violations I can run?

I could also see T arguments like, "You're developing in a gulf"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Best T on the topic- Oceans is a county in new jersey. (This is actually a thing)

Officer Tom, your case writing skills are being called to action.

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 9

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is quite interesting for those looking to fend off pesky Development interps:

 

Gilbert ‘04(Jane, MA, MSc, Independent Clinical Psychologist, Facilitator and Writer, “Developmentâ€: the power of a word to define our worldâ€, 2004, http://www.janegilbert.co.uk/unpublished%20papers/Development%20-%20the%20power%20of%20a%20word%20to%20define%20our%20world.pdf, C.B.)

 

On close examination, —development“ is a strange, multi-layered word with a  complex web of inter-related associations. The history of the word cannot be  reviewed in detail, but some points in relation to the evolution of its use are  pertinent. Even two hundred years ago —development“ had already  accumulated a whole variety of connotations, including its use as a metaphor  for the natural growth of plants and animals. At that time, scientists had  begun to use the words evolution and development almost interchangeably.  By 1800 the idea of —self development“ became fashionable. Marx also used  the idea of —development“ in a similar way to the way it had been used to  describe nature, to describe the evolution of societies, which he considered  developedthrough a historical process to a —better“ condition. By 1900  the word —development“ had accumulated so many connotations and was  being used in so many different contexts that its meaning could no longer be  defined precisely.  In addition to all the earlier connotations attached to the word prior to 1900,  at the beginning of the 20thcentury a new use of the term development  became widespread Å“ urban development. Since then the word  â€”development“ has also been used to describe a specific manner of  reformulation of urban surroundings.  Thus throughout this century the meanings associated with —development“  concurred with many other previous meanings step by step to transform the  word —development“ into something that is now used in very many different  contexts and is thus extremely imprecise. As mentioned earlier, thinking  cannot be detached from words. When a person uses the word  â€”development“ the associated web of meanings Å“ growth, evolution,  maturation Å“ are also implicitly assumed. In present day usage  â€”development“ now always implies a favourable change, a step from the  simple to the complex, from the inferior to the superior, from worse to better.   The word indicates that one is doing well because one is advancing in the  sense of a necessary, ineluctable, universal law and toward a desirable goal.

Edited by KTricksfordays
  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Officer Tom, your case writing skills are being called to action.

Hey actually wrote that. I was pretty proud of myself too.

  • Downvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why would you need to act on multiple oceans? The topic is simply saying to develop the collective subject 'Earth's oceans'.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Does there even need to be a QPQ for Ocean Explore/Dev? pretty much every T-QPQ debate this year was on engagement definition and i can't see any unilateral action (like exp/dev) needing a trade off like that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Does there even need to be a QPQ for Ocean Explore/Dev? pretty much every T-QPQ debate this year was on engagement definition and i can't see any unilateral action (like exp/dev) needing a trade off like that.

No what he was saying is that QPQ is the most common T argument this year and he was asking what was going to be the most common T arg next year.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"exploration"

 

I have a bad feeling that some troll team will do a swimming aff with an obesity advantage and say that a couple of people swimming at a beach is exploration. Actually, I'm not sure that's a bad feeling.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Given that all of the oceans are connected and merge into one another, action in one is action in all by virtue of the connection. Singular vs plural, ocean vs oceans, is therefore a mute point on my ballots.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Quality

 

 

A. Interpretation - the earth is a 4-sided time cube - the plan text has to specify which side the plan passes on

 

Ray, No Date [Dr. Gene, Cubic and Wisest Human. “Time Cube.†www.timecube.com

you realize that a 4 corner

square rotating 1/4 turn creates a full

circle? A full rotated square will create

16 corners, 96 hours and 4 simultaneous

24 hour Day circles within only a single

imaginary cubed Earth roation. This

amounts to a spiraling quad helix of

Earth as it revolves around the Sun -

rotating as it revolves around the Sun,

to induce the value of the Sun revolving

about the Earth.

 

B. Violation - they fail to specify what side the plan passes on

 

C. Standards

 

1. Education - 

I can call singularity educators the most 

putrid name on Earth and claim they eat 

cow-dung ambrosia, but the lying ass 

bastards will not even object - for they 

know I am right and that any debate will 

indict them for the evil they perpetuate 

against the students and future humanity.

 

2. Ground - I lose links to side-specific DAs and counterplans

 

D. Voting issue

 

1. Jurisdiction - you lose automatically because

You do not have the freedom

to discuss/debate Time Cube.

 

2. Death - 

EVERY HUMAN DESERVES DEATH FOR IGNORING SUCH A SUPERNATURAL TRANSCENDENTAL PRINCIPLE.

 

Ashtar is the spiritual figure for the alien races waging an interstellar war that includes the Sol system [that's ours]. The negative consults Ashtar as a counterplan to solve war and violence and oppression, especially within these races. You can think of Ashtar like an alien Jesus Christ [in fact, some authors directly state that]. Here's a potential 1nc shell, but I'm sure the WGLF has a much better one:

 

Text: The USFG should engage in binding consultation with Lord Ashtar over <the plan>.

 

accepting Lord Ashtar as the ultimate authority is the only way to save our freedom and avoid nuclear war

Metatron on March 18 (2011, “Metatron on Supermoon Cosmic Wave Energies Pouring into Equatorâ€, Human microphone: Madelaine, Galactic Free Press, http://soundofheart....pouring-equator)

Saturn lends its light magnifying the effects greatly. What role does Saturn play? At Saturn we have the Intergalactic Confederation of Worlds Court in this Solar System. This is called the Solar Tribunal. Lord Ashtar has stated many times there is a sequential flow of events that must take place before change over to Zero Point. The first is the arrests of the Intergalactic War Criminals. As the Citizens of Earth risk their lives to demand FREEDOM, it indicts the actions of the disreputable Monarchs and Puppet Governments of Earth. These relationships have been nurtured by the controlling families who have tried to control and reduce the population of Earth. These same Intergalactic War Criminals are now being stopped. It had to be a consensus among the Women, Children and Men of Each Country, the honorable White Knights moving into position to lead new government and the rest of the worldwide Community. It was only through more attacks and the bravery of the Ones in the Streets could we have a worldwide consensus. This is due to the Ones still hoping to stay in power working against the White Knights and the Greatest Good of All. The veil has thinned and their feeble grabs at power are becoming obvious even to the most sleepy. Lord Ashtar has also said, No Dates, No Nukes, No Flukes. What does it mean? The date at which the Galactic Federation decloaks all its Ships at once around the world is determined by the Citizens of Earth, not by the Galactics. The Citizens of Earth have been told many times, as have their Government Leaders that an end of the potential of Nuclear Destruction on Earth was a requirement. The Government Leaders who want to control Earth, not all of them, the dark Ones, kept their power by not following this requirement. For them, complying means they are arrested and possibly face second death. They would do anything to avoid getting rid of Nukes. 

Be serious or be gone.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Given that all of the oceans are connected and merge into one another, action in one is action in all by virtue of the connection. Singular vs plural, ocean vs oceans, is therefore a mute point on my ballots.

But even if there is one megaocean, there are different regions of that ocean, e.g the indian ocean is a label for the ocean south of india, the atlantic ocean is to the west of europe, and to the east of the Americas.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Critique of development!!

 

 

This is quite interesting for those looking to fend off pesky Development interps:

 

Gilbert ‘04(Jane, MA, MSc, Independent Clinical Psychologist, Facilitator and Writer, “Developmentâ€: the power of a word to define our worldâ€, 2004, http://www.janegilbert.co.uk/unpublished%20papers/Development%20-%20the%20power%20of%20a%20word%20to%20define%20our%20world.pdf, C.B.)

 

On close examination, —development“ is a strange, multi-layered word with a  complex web of inter-related associations. The history of the word cannot be  reviewed in detail, but some points in relation to the evolution of its use are  pertinent. Even two hundred years ago —development“ had already  accumulated a whole variety of connotations, including its use as a metaphor  for the natural growth of plants and animals. At that time, scientists had  begun to use the words evolution and development almost interchangeably.  By 1800 the idea of —self development“ became fashionable. Marx also used  the idea of —development“ in a similar way to the way it had been used to  describe nature, to describe the evolution of societies, which he considered  developedthrough a historical process to a —better“ condition. By 1900  the word —development“ had accumulated so many connotations and was  being used in so many different contexts that its meaning could no longer be  defined precisely

 

A strong generic negative strategy will actually be to run a critique of the word "development." I suspect next year most affirmative cases will do no "exploration" and just claim that their case "increases development" of the ocean, since that word can be bent all sorts of different ways. But the word "development" gets a lot of criticism. Here's the obvious card from that same article you quote:

 

 

Gilbert ‘04(Jane, MA, MSc, Independent Clinical Psychologist, Facilitator and Writer, “Developmentâ€: the power of a word to define our worldâ€, 2004, http://www.janegilbert.co.uk/unpublished%20papers/Development%20-%20the%20power%20of%20a%20word%20to%20define%20our%20world.pdf, C.B.)

 

The word "development" is not value free. One of the most damaging implicit value judgements in its contemporary usage in the context of international aid is the implication that non Western countries, cultures or peoples are somehow insufficient or not good enough themselves. Therefore they have to "develop" in to something else -- that something else being modeled on Western culture. Therefore the concept of "development" also implicitly assumes some kind of cultural superiority in those who are already "developed", i.e. the industrialized Western nations, compared to those who are "underdeveloped". These assumptions underlying the word "development" have profound implications.

 

Granted, developing the ocean isn't the same as developing a nation. But there are various Deep Ecology critiques of "development" that link better this year.

 

I did a google scholar search and found Sustainable Development: Exploring the Contradictions to wet your appetite. Check out page 15:

 

Development is usually defined principally in terms of economic growth: as countries experience increased growth their productive capacity expands and they 'develop'.
 

Run that as a definition on T-Development, concede the "We Meet," and cross-apply it to the K.

Edited by Tomak
  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interestingly enough, I already wrote a Development Discourse K for next year... with some ev from that essay.

 

Also a Deep Ecology K... awkward...

 

Its Anthro, not Development tho.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think a proper counter-interp to "Earth's oceans must be 2 or more" would be like ""In the Earth's oceans" merely serves as a designation of location of the exploration or development, and was not literally meant as multiple oceans." Just like how in the space topic, you didn't have to develop or explore ALL of space beyond the Earth's mesosphere, it was just a location of where the exploration or development would happen. Idk, the framer is a coach from my district so I'll just have to email him and then cut his email reply as a well developed framer's intent counter standard. 

Edited by Wimbodebate
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

T - Oceans

 

1. Interpretation - Oceans is plural in the resolution, there is no counter-interpretation.

 

2. Violation - The Affirmative only increases development or exploration in one of the oceans on the Earth, not a plural amount like the resolution mandates. 

 

3. Standards

 

A. Ground - The negative loses out on global biodiversity loss DA links and this destroys clash and fairness in round. 

 

B. Limits - The Affirmative severely limits the resolution and explode the negative research burden because it makes us prep for every geographical location within every ocean. 

 

C. MPX Calculus -  The affirmative can just argue that our links to their one ocean are slippery slope and spike out of any environmental DAs that we run, destroying the potential probability and magnitude the negative can obtain. 

 

4. Vote the affirmative down for fairness and education.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

has anybody looked up what projects the respective agencies undertake when they conduct explorations and developments of the global oceans?

 

for exploration, it really is as simple as having a global and specific application. for example, one project claimed to characterize novel scientific findings and then investigated a specific ocean basin. another project used the claim of discovering new ocean resources for bioprospecting missions around the world

 

development is a different story. whether or not the government puts an area of water into use (k issues aside) seems to be a question for the agency alone to decide. i haven't found a court who has challenged noaa on the issue yet

 

my team is working on a couple of affs but it seems as if the exploration ones are headed in the direction of general advantage affs where as developments are specific projects being advocated for. mind you this is all the traditional side of the topic, and i don't need to remind you what lies on the other side of that wall...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...